Not disclosed case with wife: Jharkhand High Court restores CRPF man’s compulsory retirement

Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad noted that the petitioner filed an appeal challenging the order of punishment passed before the appellate authority, which modified its punishment to “removal from service”.

“While imposing the punishment, it is none of the business of the disciplinary authority/appellate/revisional authority to look into the consequence of punishment; rather, thoughtful consideration is required to be given by the original authority or the appellate authority or the revisional authority on the nature and gravity of the charge,” the order read. 

The high court, in its April 15 order, restored the original punishment of compulsory retirement and set aside the removal from service ordered by the appellate and revisional authorities.

While compulsory retirement allows an employee to retain certain retirement benefits, removal from service results in the complete loss of such benefits, making it a far more severe penalty.

‘Removal of service not sustainable punishment’

• The high court clarified that changing the punishment of compulsory retirement to removal of service by the appellate authority merely because the petitioner had not completed 10 years of service is not sustainable. 
• The high court noted that the disciplinary authority in the instant case has considered the gravity of the charge and has found itself satisfied to inflict the punishment of compulsory retirement.
• The court further noted that the petitioner filed an appeal challenging the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority, but the appellate authority, instead of going through the gravity of the charge, has gone into its consequence and changed the punishment passed by the disciplinary authority to removal from service. 
• The consequence which was considered by the appellate authority was that the petitioner had not rendered the period of ten years of service.
• The high court further pointed out that the appellate authority should have gone into the gravity of the charge, for the purpose of considering the propriety of the punishment inflicted by the disciplinary authority and not the consequences. 
• The court noted that the petitioner has not questioned the legality of compulsory retirement punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and found it just and proper. 

Married before joining

The petitioner was appointed as a constable in the central reserve police force (CRPF) in February 2006. 

It was claimed that before the service in the CRPF, the petitioner got married in the year 2005, but immediately after the marriage, his wife left his house and started to live with her parents and refused to stay with him.

Subsequently, a criminal case was filed under IPC for cruelty and under the Dowry Prohibition Act, was initiated against the petitioner. 

It was stated that, though in the said case, he was in judicial custody for three days, in August 2013, he was acquitted in the said criminal case. 

Later, his wife had filed another case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in which the petitioner was also acquitted in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 

It was also placed on record that her wife had also filed a case for maintenance, which also ended in compromise. 

However, the authorities found that in the verification roll filled in December 2011, the petitioner had failed to disclose his marital status and pending criminal cases.

Later, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him in August 2015 concerning these concealments. 

The petitioner participated in the departmental proceeding and was punished with compulsory retirement by an order of May 2016.

Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the deputy inspector general, CRPF of Jharkhand Sector, which was dismissed by a July 2016 order and the punishment of ‘compulsory retirement’ was converted to ‘removal from service’.

Aggrieved with the order passed by the original as well as the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred revision, which also stood dismissed by an order of October 2016. 

The petitioner, aggrieved with the order passed by the original authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority, lastly approached this court by filing the present petition. 

Arguments

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Rajeev Kumar Sinha has questioned the legality and propriety of the order passed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority.

He submitted that it was none of the business of the appellate authority to reverse the order of ‘compulsory retirement’ to ‘removal from service’, that too on the pretext of counting the period of ten years of service.

It was further submitted that the compulsory retirement or the removal from service is the major punishment and as such, irrespective of the entitlement to get the pensionary benefit in consequence of compulsory retirement, the same cannot be a ground for conversion of the order of ‘compulsory retirement’ to that of ‘removal from service’. 

Additional Solicitor General of India Prashant Pallav has submitted that furnishing the wrong information at the time of joining the service by the applicant is gross misconduct.

He also submitted that while concealment amounted to misconduct, the ground relied upon by the appellate authority for enhancing punishment was not in line with the rules.